THE STEVENSON TRUST FOR CITIZENSHIP On the occasion of his 90th birthday….. Professor David Donnison ‘On Tap But Not on Top: Reflections on Academic Contributions to the Analysis of Social Problems and the Formulation of Social Policy’ Chair: Ruth Wishart With opening remarks from Professor Graham Watt, MD FRCGP FRSE FMedSci, Norrie Miller Chair of General Practice and Primary Care, University of Glasgow Tuesday, February 9th at 6 p.m. Sir Charles Wilson Lecture Theatre (Corner of Gibson Street and University Avenue) 2 INTRODUCTION It is a pleasure and an honour to introduce David Donnison. I have another friend, Dr Runa Mackay, who every November holds a fundraising event in Edinburgh for Medical Aid for Palestinians, a charity for which we have a common interest, regularly raising about five thousand pounds in a morning. When I commented how remarkable it was that she continues to do this at the age of 93, she was quick to point out that she was “only 92”. Our speaker this evening is “only 90”. No longer nimble on his feet, he continues to be nimble of mind. Since his 80th birthday lecture in 2005, he has completed two books and published a collection of poems in memory of Kay Carmichael. Emeritus professor, he is also a poet, painter, musician and occasional wild swimmer. He is described as “Britain’s foremost authority on social policy and administration”. The list goes on and on. David goes on and on. His CV includes schooling at Marlborough College, university at Oxford, academic posts at Manchester, Toronto, London and Glasgow, succeeding Richard Titmuss to the chair of Social Administration at the London School of Economics and chairing the Supplementary Benefits Commission, until it was abolished by Margaret Thatcher. The list of activities barely captures the man, who had contacts in high places but never let his feet leave the ground. His book “Last of the Guardians” tells the story of his parents, who were among the last governors of Burma in the final days of the British Empire. In 1926, they had a son, David, who is reported as not having breathed or cried for 20 minutes after he was born. They need not have worried. Even at that age, David thought carefully before deciding what to say. I know David mainly via the Kettle Club, which recently had its 100th meeting. We meet every so often, a dozen or so friends and colleagues sitting round a table to discuss issues, mostly involving science, politics and health – what used to be called social medicine, but is now spread over many disciplines, diagnosing and remedying the ills of society. Over 20 years David has attended 33 Kettle Club meetings, so I have some idea of where he is coming from. There are other sources of reference in his 80th birthday lecture Traveller there is no path. Paths are made by walking (still available on the web) and a famous joint session with Julian Tudor Hart in 2008, discussing What then must we do?, echoing Tolstoy and Lenin. He can talk history in real time, describing how he heard the 1945 election result, as a young Royal Navy midshipman crossing the Indian Ocean late at night. He can recall the pioneering post-war days of social policy and administration, and then the process of decline as the Labour Party, the Welfare State and public service professions all seemed to lose their way. David doesn’t pine for the past. That is another country. Rather, he is hopeful, imagining a better future and trying it out as an advocate and practitioner of advocacy, from the bottom up. In 2008, he argued that publicly funded professionals needed to develop new 3 alliances with the people they serve. Academia, he noted, was largely absent from that agenda. That challenge facing academics is the topic he will address this evening. He is serving the main course. My job is to serve some starters. Health inequalities in Scotland are wider than in any other western European country and have been so for many years. What does that say about our publicly funded institutions, including universities? If they haven’t been part of the solution over the last 20 years, aren’t they part of the problem, hypertrophied, inefficient, bureaucratic, past their sell-by date, sensitive to the slightest suggestion of external governance? Robert Graves was Professor of Poetry at Oxford. Under “occupation” on his passport, he put “professor”. To put “poet” was asking for trouble. He found that “professor” guaranteed “dull respect”. Graves survived four years in the trenches in World War 1, writing it up in Goodbye to all that. By 1918 the only thing that front line soldiers believed in was loyalty to comrades, in the face of cruel fate and blind chance. They had only contempt for priests and preachers trying to put a gloss on futility. Their solidarity with comrades was based on shared doubt and uncertainty. Doubts unite. Certainty divides. Might there be a basis there for re-inventing society? As scientists whose job is to measure doubt, to chisel away at uncertainty so that what remains is the truth, we could have a role. But do we? We aim to inform and influence decisions, from the First Minister down. Decisions are usually based on experience, sometimes on evidence, but are always underpinned by values. Our role might be to draw on the experience, to produce the evidence, to distil the values. But it sometimes seems that we only produce evidence, of a rather narrow kind. Yesterday the First Minister announced funds for precision medicine, genetically-based treatments that could transform the lives of patients with multiple sclerosis and pancreatic cancer. That’s fine. But what about everybody else, especially people whose lives end 10-15 years earlier than the most affluent, and spend twice as long in poor health before they die? The last great natural resource, at least for now, is the human resource, especially the energy, commitment and passion that people bring, not only to what they do by themselves, but also to what they do with others. To paraphrase Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, “It’s relationships, stupid”. At the 12th meeting of the Kettle Club, Angus Erskine spoke of “partnership” as a weasel word, which tells nothing of the nature of the relationship between partners. Exploitative? Productive? Mutual? Distant? Close? Absent? What kinds of relationships do academics have? In the outside world, there are powerful people, streetwise people and the people. Clever people in universities need better relationships with all three. Ladies and Gentlemen. You are about to be served. Graham Watt 9th February 2016 [email protected] 4 ON TAP, NOT ON TOP? David Donnison How it was when I began When I entered University as a student after war service in the navy I found myself among teachers, also just back from the war, who expected to bring their learning to bear on practical problems and public policies. That’s what they had been doing for years. Bill Mackenzie, my politics tutor, whom some of you will recall from his last job in this University, explained that he had been “jobbed into” the Air Ministry (a splendid 18th century phrase) “to hold down Bomber Harris”, head of Bomber Command. “He was quite mad`’ he added. So, as soon as I had learned enough about social and urban problems and the policies applied to them to be of some use, it was natural to get involved in the work of the state. That was not always welcomed. “On tap, not on top” was Whitehall’s favourite way of describing the proper role of academics and “experts” of every kind in affairs of state. Even in the London School of Economics, previously directed by William Beveridge, no less, which gave me my third academic job, a senior colleague took me aside to warn that academics should not do this kind of thing. “We had enough of that in Laski’s day” he explained. But in Richard Titmuss’s Department of Social Administration, where I worked, there was no hesitation. Before long I found myself alongside the best academic team working in the field of income maintenance and social security to be found anywhere in the world. They were pretty good on health services too. Other friends I made were distinguished performers in the fields of education, social work, community work and mental health. Meanwhile, along with colleagues in other universities, I was soon playing a similar part in the fields of housing and planning. But there were very few of us. Only 5 per cent of my age group went to University, and those of us working on problems of social and urban policy were a tiny fraction of this privileged minority. But that made us pretty special. There were so few trained economists and social scientists out there. No “think tanks” (apart from the Fabian Society – daddy of them all) and scarcely any effective research units in central or local government. So we should have been able to offer some help to policy makers and the officials who were their courtiers. We had wonderful opportunities, opened up by Ministers in Harold Wilson’s cabinet who had more first class degrees than any other cabinet, before or since. (They included Wilson himself, Crossman, Crosland and others). Later, Conservative cabinets scored pretty well too, with people like Edward Boyle, Enoch Powell and Keith Joseph, often in Ministries responsible for what came to be called “the welfare state”. Whether academics make wiser or more skilful politicians than anyone else is for you to decide.